RFI, email question, or meeting minut...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 590 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 08:18 pm:    I am getting questions from the contractor and owner thrown at me all the time. How do I know what questions belong as an official RFI, what questions can be answered via e-mail and what questions can be answered at the progress meetings and recorded in the minutes? Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 53 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 08:51 pm:    If it changes a document, such as a dimension, I like to make them an RFI. (Minor change not effecting cost or time). Other times may be when an Agency official is asking for something, like the proper type of fastener used in Borate based treated wood (today's interesting RFI for me), an RFI or ASI is a great way to respond. The purpose of an RFI is to function as a two communication between you and the contractor. It should always be in the form of a question, but I try not to be too hard on the GC for superfluous RFI's (within reason). I WANT the GC to ask questions, I WANT the GC to allow ME to interpret the drawings. What I do, is ask the GC to call first, and then I usually answer on the phone if I can, and then ask for an RFI to document the issue, if it pertains to the criteria listed above. Has been working pretty well for me so far. But you need to be very efficient in processing RFI's, or else you could drown. An RFI that does not need to be documented could be like a typo, or incorrect detail reference. I'll clarify it via telephone, and then post right on my drawing the correction, and date of the call, and with whom I spoke to. That cuts down on the burn rate very well, and seems to satisfy our in-house council. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 87 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:04 am:    I like Nathan's answer, but the "minor change not affecting cost or time" sounds suspiciously like the definition of an ASI. So the question is: when does an RFI response need to become an ASI? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 438 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 08:57 am:    With CA, it's always easy to create more paperwork than necessary. If I can respond to an RFI as Nathan describes I consider the task done--the RFI and the log will serve as a record of the question and response. In my specifications regarding RFIs, I have language that says, essentially, that an answer to an RFI is equivalent to an ASI. I also respond to most RFIs by hand directly on the form (don't have to type a memo.) Nathan's concepts of when to RFI and when to not are much the same as mine. I also like RFIs because it is a solid form of documentation. Some think that there are too many RFIs (and on some jobs that's probably true), but I think the problem lies in the work process many use: get an RFI, log it (separately from the GC), type a response memo, log that, type a transmittal, and send. That's why we get buried and why we need leaner methods. The questions aren't going away, or even necessarily increasing, but the need to document is more important. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 259 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 10:42 am:    OK, for those included in the "general consumption" [including myself and one very nice lady} what, George is an ASI? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 155 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 10:45 am:    I have very little experience directly with CA work although I get involved when the spec needs interpretation, but I do get an earful from a number of different sources. I like Mr. Wood's attitude about wanting the Contractor to ask questions, and when the Contractor is doing his job, this is certainly the most appropriate attitude to have. However, many Contractors have the attitude that the Architect is responsible for providing detailed information for every possible situation and completely coordinating the work. I have seen instances where Contractors are not familiar enough with the Contract Documents even when the job is more than 50% complete. In such cases, I would think that the proper response is simply, "Look at the f***g documents." Architects can get sucked into doing the Contractor's job if he/she is not careful. There will be errors and there will be omissions; there will be additional information required by the Contractor that just is not in the Construction Documents. In such cases, the information is there, it just is unclear. RFIs can be useful in documenting clarifications when a field for such a response is included on the form. If the construction contract is based on AIA A 201, a "change in the Work" should be documented either in an ASI (minor change which does not require a change to the contract sum or time) or a Change Order. I am also aware that some Contractors (and some Architects) see an RFI as the initial step toward a Change Order. If they think an issue can be resolved informally, it is resolved in a conversation or perhaps by e-mail. It they think the issue will open a can of worms that will result in a substantial change, they will issue an RFI. We have our own form (developed before I arrived), but CSI also has a form, and the AIA has a form as well. The attraction to using the AIA form is that it can be electronically generated. Electronic "project management software" (e.g., Buzzsaw) has this capability and it is my understanding that a log is automatically generated. We have also generated a separate Division 01 section on RFIs. A good deal of the text lays out explicitly what an RFI is and what it isn't. Probably helps cut out some of the extraneous RFIs (assuming the Contractor looks at Division 01). J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 156 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 10:47 am:    ASI - "Architect's Supplemental Instruction" (AIA G 710) AIA form for RFI is AIA G 716) Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 260 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 11:14 am:    Thank you Mr. Jordan, just couldn't shift gears on these documents, as we too use other forms. For all, there is an interesting article on RFIs in general in the October, 2005 issue of MODERN STEEL CONSTRUCTION. Could provide some other insght and perspectives in this discussion. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 54 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 11:36 am:    I found the article link: http://tinyurl.com/c83n7 ASI's are RFI's that are the answer from the architect, without waiting for the question from the GC. My definition of an RFI is not "suspicious" at all, I view RFI's and ASI's very similarly. There is a bit of strategy to keep in mind when using one verses the other. As mentioned earlier, I am in favor of using the RFI, and define it's use very clearly and probably overly thoroughly in my pre-construction meeting. However, some clients view the number of RFI's as weak documents or other negative viewpoints. On those types of projects, I will often use the ASI format. I will get a phone call from the GC, and then respond with an ASI, keeping the RFI log a bit shorter. It's semantics, but oddly enough it seems to work. However, my preferred method is not to have to track two types of documents. I really view the RFI as a two way communication device. Sometimes I'll spot something in the documents that I know needs to be addressed. I will call the GC and say, "Hey, I've got an answer, send me a question." :-) This way, I stick to the RFI process and don't have separate and concurrent logs for ASI's. RFI pet peeves: - Don't use RFI's to announce things (like meetings) - Don't use RFI's to criticize the documents - ALWAYS propose a solution, otherwise my response may likely be the most difficult, costly, and painful solution you can imagine...unintentionally. - I'm not going to tell you how to do it, or if you can do it, but I will tell you what it needs to be when you are done. - Don't ask for substitutions via RFI - Not every RFI is urgent - Don't tell me there is a cost and time impact on the RFI, before I have even responded! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 439 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 11:42 am:    It is true that sometimes an RFI is the first step down the road to a change order. However, if a response cannot be given that does not result in additional work (in other words, if we can't show we own it) then it really doesn't matter if there is an RFI or not--the contractor is going to make the claim (or else they just do it how they want to, whether it's what we expected or not). It is true that we must be careful about answering--the reply must be reasonably inferrable from the drawings. But I think that the reason that RFIs make some architects queasy is that the ambiguities in the documents are being made evident, and one's instinct is to defend oneself. I find that for most RFIS, a conversation with the contractor about possible resolutions, whether before or after an RFI is generated, is important to achieving the best resolution. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 07:05 pm:    RFI's are not official documents under A 201, therefore they can be whatever you mean them to be. I write a spec. section covering them, incorporating some of the good ideas mentioned above, and saying what they can be used for and what not. I generated the section, with quite a few restrictions, after a client of mine told me that he had 250 RFI's before the contractor finished the digging for the foundations. While you could say, the contractor did a good job of planning ahead, you could also say it drove the architect crazy. So my section says it can only be used for items that can't wait til the next job meeting, that questions must include a proposed solution, and that they can't be used to request approval of submittals or substitutions. I also say that the number of them has to be kept to a minimum, and if, in the Architect's opinion, their use is excessive, the Architect can required the use of conventional communications, i.e., written (not e-mailed) letters. The client noted above said I would have saved him hundreds of hours if this had been written when we did his project.